Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends in Cervical Fusion Utilization from 2004 Through 2021 and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cervical fusion rates increased in the U.S. exponentially 1990-2014, but trends leading up to/during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been fully evaluated by patient socioeconomic status (SES). Here, we provide the most recent, comprehensive characterization of demographic and SES trends in cervical fusions, including during the pandemic. METHODS: We collected the following variables on adults undergoing cervical fusions, 1/1/2004-3/31/2021, in Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, provider's practicing state, gender, race, education, and net worth. We performed multivariate linear and logistic regression to evaluate associations of cervical fusion rates with SES variables. RESULTS: Cervical fusion rates increased 2004-2016, then decreased 2016-2020. Proportions of Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing cervical fusions increased (OR = 1.001,1.001,1.004, P < 0.01), with a corresponding decrease in White patients (OR = 0.996, P < 0.001) over time. There were increases in cervical fusions in higher education groups (OR = 1.006, 1.002, P < 0.001) and lowest net worth group (OR = 1.012, P < 0.001). During the pandemic, proportions of White (OR = 1.015, P < 0.01) and wealthier patients (OR ≥ 1.015, P < 0.01) undergoing cervical fusions increased. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first documented decrease in annual cervical surgery rates in the U.S. Our data reveal a bimodal distribution for cervical fusion patients, with racial-minority, lower-net-worth, and highly-educated patients receiving increasing proportions of surgical interventions. White and wealthier patients were more likely to undergo cervical fusions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been reported in other areas of medicine but not yet in spine surgery. There is still considerable work needed to improve equitable access to spine care for the entire U.S.

Anabolic and Antiresorptive Osteoporosis Treatment: Trends, Costs, and Sequence in a Commercially Insured Population, 2003-2021.

New anabolic medications (abaloparatide and romosozumab) were recently approved for osteoporosis, and data suggest that prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes. This study aimed to characterize prescription trends, demographics, geographical distributions, out-of-pocket costs, and treatment sequences for anabolic and antiresorptive osteoporosis medications. Using a commercial claims database (Clinformatics Data Mart), adult patients with osteoporosis from 2003 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and stratified based on osteoporosis medication class. Patient demographics and socioeconomic variables, provider types, and out-of-pocket costs were collected. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of receiving osteoporosis treatment. A total of 2,988,826 patients with osteoporosis were identified; 616,635 (20.6%) received treatment. Patients who were female, Hispanic or Asian, in the Western US, had higher net worth, or had greater comorbidity burden were more likely to receive osteoporosis medications. Among patients who received medication, 31,112 (5.0%) received anabolic medication; these were more likely to be younger, White patients with higher education level, net worth, and greater comorbidity burden. Providers who prescribed the most anabolic medications were rheumatologists (18.5%), endocrinologists (16.8%), and general internists (15.3%). Osteoporosis medication prescriptions increased fourfold from 2003 to 2020, whereas anabolic medication prescriptions did not increase at this rate. Median out-of-pocket costs were $17 higher for anabolic than antiresorptive medications, though costs for anabolic medications decreased significantly from 2003 to 2020 (compound annual growth rate: -0.6%). A total of 8388 (1.4%) patients tried two or more osteoporosis medications, and 0.6% followed the optimal treatment sequence. Prescription of anabolic osteoporosis medications has not kept pace with overall osteoporosis treatment, and there are socioeconomic disparities in anabolic medication prescription, potentially driven by higher median out-of-pocket costs. Although prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes, this treatment sequence occurred in only 0.6% of the study cohort. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Trends, payments, and costs associated with BMP use in Medicare beneficiaries undergoing spinal fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Bone morphogenic protein (BMP) promotes bony fusion but increases costs. Recent trends in BMP use among Medicare patients have not been well-characterized. PURPOSE: To assess utilization trends, complication, payments, and costs associated with BMP use in spinal fusion in a Medicare-insured population. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Total of 316,070 patients who underwent spinal fusion in a 20% sample of Medicare-insured patients, 2006 to 2015. OUTCOME MEASURES: Utilization trends across time and geography, complications, payments, and costs. METHODS: Patients were stratified by fusion type and diagnosis. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to adjust for the effect of baseline characteristics on complications and total payments or cost, respectively. RESULTS: BMP was used in 60,249 cases (19.1%). BMP utilization rates decreased from 23.1% in 2006 to 12.0% in 2015, most significantly in anterior cervical (7.5%-3.1%), posterior cervical (17.0%-8.3%), and posterior lumbar fusions (31.5%-15.8%). There are significant state- and region-level geographic differences in BMP utilization. Across all years, states with the highest BMP use were Indiana (28.5%), Colorado (26.6%), and Nevada (25.7%). States with the lowest BMP use were Maine (2.3%), Vermont (8.2%), and Mississippi (10.4%). After multivariate risk adjustment, BMP use was associated with decreased overall complications in thoracic (odds ratios [OR] [95% confidence intervals [CI]): 0.89 [0.81-0.99]) and anterior lumbar fusions (OR [95% CI]: 0.89 [0.84-0.95]), as well as increased reoperation rates in anterior cervical (OR [95% CI]: 1.11 [1.04-1.19]), posterior cervical (OR (95% CI): 1.14 (1.04-1.25)), thoracic (OR (95% CI): 1.32 (1.23-1.41)), and posterior lumbar fusions (OR (95% CI): 1.11 (1.06-1.16)). BMP use was also associated with greater total costs, independent of fusion type, after multivariate risk adjustment (p<.0001). Payments, however, were comparable between groups in anterior and posterior cervical fusion with or without BMP. BMP use was associated with greater total payments in thoracic, anterior lumbar, and posterior lumbar fusions. Notably, the difference in payments was smaller than the associated cost increase in all fusion types. CONCLUSIONS: BMP use has declined across all fusion types over the last decade, after a peak in 2007. While BMP is associated with greater costs, reimbursement does not increase proportionally with BMP cost.